AppImages as a universal packaging format seem fun in that I've had loads of issues getting them to run properly on different systems. I'm sure they're handy for some stuff but haven't personally enjoyed them.
this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
218 points (80.8% liked)
Linux
50449 readers
412 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
By the way, if you guys are interested here is a talk comparing Appimages Snaps and Flatpaks by Richard Brown, one the devs at Suse, a big contributer to openSuse and the guy who spearheaded the Desktop variante of MicroOS (the immutable openSuse Tumbleweed).
He isn't to keen on appimages either because of a miriad of technical issues.
youtube.com/watch?v=4WuYGcs0t6I&t=456
For all the Grayjay/Newpipe/Freetube users
Very good video with additional points, will add them
Totally agree with basically every point here. You hit the nail on the head. App images are the .exe's of the Linux world and I don't understand how someone can say they love app images but hate Window's portable exe's. Even Windows doesn't have nearly as many portable executable as they once did. And when they do, most people (even those who prefer app images) prefer an exe with a Windows installer.
Anyways, this is all to point out why I avoid app images if at all possible
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'll be voted down but...
This is the shit you get from kids who grew up with "app stores."
load more comments
(14 replies)
It would be nice if there was a way to bundle up a flatpak that was at risk of disappearing
load more comments
(1 replies)
Why do I hear the argument about no .desktop entries in every thread like this? Creating a .desktop file is a requirement for the appimage creation tools to work, and appimaged installs it in the system menu immediately. It's seamless.
flatpak?
Frying pan, meet fire.
AppImages can be signed. Flat pak is the lesser option for security
Explained in a other comment how a pain it is to verify such a signature.
Is that stored in the appimage file?
I find it funny how flatpak neglectors always spell it wrong
Needed to have zulip to talk about a bug, the AUR package was a pain to debug, the appimage in ~/.local/bin just works™.
Feather Wallet is a great example of AppImages done right
Appimages are awesome for the regular user. Single file, just double click to run anywhere. Snap and Flatpak should die a quick death and all the work should be used to improve Appimages. There's no other concept for the end user as simple and clear as this.
I double clicked, the program didn't run because it's missing some dependencies
They mimic the apple application format to some degree and it is a great way to distribute. The real detriment is sandboxing but with more support this could be included.
load more comments
(2 replies)